laureate A. Cid vs. Irene P. Javier, et al.

A negative easement of light and view cannot be acquired by prescription through a mere verbal prohibition; Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code requires a formal act of prohibition, and Article 621 of the new Civil Code clarifies that this means an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Moreover, an easement not annotated on the Torrens certificate of title of the servient estate at the time of registration is cut off or extinguished under Section 39 of the Land Registration Act.

Laureana A. Cid owned a lot adjoining that of the Javier respondents in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, both lots being covered by Torrens titles. Respondents' building on their lot had windows overlooking petitioner's adjacent lot, and the dispute concerned whether a negative easement of light and view had been acquired by prescription. Because the alleged prohibition predated the new Civil Code, Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code supplied the governing rule, with Article 621 of the new Civil Code as clarification. A municipal ordinance requiring a two-meter eaves-to-eaves distance between adjoining buildings of strong materials also figured in the injunction phase.

Laureana A. Cid owned a lot adjoining the lot of the Javier respondents in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Both lots were covered by Torrens titles. Respondents' building stood on their own lot, and the windows in question were admittedly in that building, overlooking petitioner's adjacent lot. The easement, if any, was therefore a negative one.

Respondents claimed an enforceable easement of light and view by prescription arising from a verbal prohibition allegedly made in 1913 or 1914 upon petitioner's predecessor-in-interest as owner of the adjoining lot. The alleged prohibition predated the effectivity of the new Civil Code.

The Court of Appeals found as undisputed that the plaintiffs' lot, the dominant estate, and the defendant's lot, the servient estate, were covered by Original Certificates of Title Nos. 7225 and 7545, respectively, both issued by the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Norte pursuant to decrees of registration issued on December 27, 1937, in Cadastral Case No. 51, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 1212 of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Neither certificate of title contained any annotation of the easement supposedly acquired by prescription. Counting the twenty-year period from 1913 or 1914, the easement would have already ripened by 1937, the date of the decrees of registration.

In the injunction phase, the record showed that respondents' house and petitioner's house were within their respective properties. Respondents' wall stood only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the two lots, while petitioner's building wall was constructed 1 meter from the boundary, or 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the wall of respondents' house. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of the two houses overlapped each other by 24 centimeters. The Court of Appeals declared this to be violative of the ordinance requiring a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials. The ordinance had been adopted since 1909 and was already in force when respondents reconstructed their house in 1946 after the building originally erected thereon was burned in 1942. If respondents had constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner had constructed hers, there would have been no overlapping of the eaves and no violation of the ordinance. The violation could not therefore be attributed entirely to petitioner.

• Error of Both Lower Courts: Petitioner alleged that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that respondents acquired an enforceable easement of light and view by prescription; the petition framed the issue as whether a verbal prohibition could give rise to such an easement.

• Finality of Ordinance Violation: Respondents claimed in their motion for reconsideration that the lower court's finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the building under construction violated Municipal Ordinance No. 3, from which no appeal was interposed, had become final and justified the issuance and permanence of the injunction.
• Right to Light and View: Respondents maintained that petitioner's construction was made in disregard of their right to light and view.

• Formal Act Requirement: Whether a verbal prohibition made in 1913 or 1914 upon petitioner's predecessor-in-interest sufficed as a "formal act" under Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code to commence prescription for a negative easement of light and view.
• Torrens Registration: Whether an easement of light and view allegedly acquired by prescription was cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without annotation of the easement, pursuant to Section 39 of the Land Registration Act.
• Continuation of Injunction: Whether respondents' motion for reconsideration justified continuation of the injunction because the finding of ordinance violation had become final.

• Formal Act Requirement: No. A verbal prohibition is not a "formal act" under Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code; the prohibition must be executed in due form and/or with solemnity, as clarified by Article 621 of the new Civil Code requiring an instrument acknowledged before a notary public.
• Torrens Registration: Yes. Even assuming acquisition, the easement was cut off or extinguished by registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without annotation, pursuant to Section 39 of the Land Registration Act.
• Continuation of Injunction: No. The injunction was properly dissolved and not continued because the overlapping eaves and ordinance violation could not be attributed entirely to petitioner; respondents' own construction 50 centimeters from the boundary contributed, and compliance would require both parties.

• Formal Act Requirement: Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code governed because the alleged prohibition was made in 1913 or 1914, before the new Civil Code took effect. That provision requires that, for negative easements, prescription be computed from the day the owner of the dominant estate has, by a formal act, forbidden the owner of the servient estate to perform any act which would be lawful without the easement. The lower courts considered any prohibition, oral or written, sufficient. The Supreme Court disagreed. The law requires not any form of prohibition but a formal act. "Formal" means characterized by due form or order, done in due form with solemnity; "act," in civil law, means a writing which states in legal form that a thing has been done, said, or agreed. Thus, the phrase "formal act" requires not merely any writing but one executed in due form and/or with solemnity. Article 621 of the new Civil Code clarified this by specifically requiring the prohibition to be in an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Easements are encumbrances on the servient estate and limitations on the dominical right of the owner; negative easements cannot be acquired by less formal means. The alleged verbal prohibition therefore did not commence prescription.
• Torrens Registration: The Court of Appeals found undisputed that the dominant and servient lots were covered by Original Certificates of Title Nos. 7225 and 7545, issued by the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Norte pursuant to decrees of registration issued on December 27, 1937, in Cadastral Case No. 51, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 1212 of Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Neither certificate contained any annotation of the easement supposedly acquired by prescription. Counting twenty years from 1913 or 1914, the easement would have ripened by 1937, the date of the decrees of registration. Consequently, even conceding arguendo that such an easement had been acquired, it was cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without the easement being annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to Section 39 of the Land Registration Act, in relation to Section 11 of the Cadastral Law (Act No. 2259).
• Continuation of Injunction: Respondents moved for reconsideration, claiming that the lower court's finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the building under construction violated the ordinance had become final and justified the issuance and permanence of the injunction. The Court noted that respondents' house and petitioner's house were within their respective properties; respondents' wall stood only 50 centimeters from the boundary, while petitioner's wall was constructed 1 meter from the boundary, or 1 meter and 50 centimeters from respondents' wall. The lower court found that the eaves overlapped by 24 centimeters, which the Court of Appeals declared violative of the ordinance requiring a 2-meter eaves-to-eaves distance. The ordinance had been adopted since 1909 and was in force when respondents reconstructed their house in 1946 after the original building burned in 1942. If respondents had constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner had, there would have been no overlapping and no violation. The violation could not be attributed entirely to petitioner as to require her alone to make the adjustments. Compliance, if made, would have to be made not only by petitioner but also by respondents. There was therefore no reason for the continuation of the injunction, and the motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

• Negative easement of light and view — An easement is negative when the owner of the dominant estate has the right to prevent the owner of the servient estate from performing an act that would otherwise be lawful, such as obstructing light and view. Because the windows were in respondents' own building on their own lot, the claimed easement was negative. The Court applied the rule that negative easements cannot be acquired by less formal means than those required by law.
• Formal act requirement for prescription of negative easements — Under Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code, prescription of a negative easement runs from the day the dominant owner, by a formal act, forbids the servient owner from performing an act lawful without the easement. The Court held that "formal act" does not mean any oral or written prohibition; it requires an act executed in due form and/or with solemnity. Article 621 of the new Civil Code clarified this by requiring an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Applied: the alleged verbal prohibition in 1913 or 1914 did not commence prescription.
• Torrens registration as cutting off unannotated easements — Under Section 39 of the Land Registration Act, registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without annotation of an existing easement cuts off or extinguishes that easement. Applied: even assuming respondents acquired the easement by 1937, the registration of the servient estate under Original Certificate of Title No. 7545 without annotation extinguished it.
• Easements as encumbrances limiting dominical rights — Easements are encumbrances on the servient estate and limitations on the owner's dominical right; they can be acquired only by title and by prescription, and negative easements cannot be acquired by informal means. This principle supported the strict construction of Article 538.
• Shared responsibility for ordinance compliance — Where an ordinance violation resulting from overlapping eaves is attributable to the construction of both adjoining owners, an injunction cannot require only one owner to make the adjustments; compliance must be made by both. Applied in denying reconsideration.

• "In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in the next preceding article, the time of the possession shall be computed, ... in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate has, by a formal act, forbidden the owner of the servient estate to perform any act which would be lawful without the easement." — This is the Court's quotation of Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code, the controlling provision on prescription of negative easements.
• "From these definitions, it would appear that the phrase "formal act" would require not merely any writing, but one executed in due form and/or with solemnity." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for rejecting the lower courts' view that a verbal prohibition sufficed.
• "Consequently, even conceding arguendo that such an easement has been acquired, it had been cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without the easement being annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to Section 39 of the Land Registration Act." — This is the Court's alternative holding on the effect of Torrens registration without annotation.
• "If any compliance with the ordinance would be made not only by petitioner, but also by the respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the injunction." — This passage from the resolution explains why the injunction was not continued after respondents' motion for reconsideration.

• Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo, 2 Phil. 24 — Cited in the footnote for the classification of the easement as negative; the Court of Appeals also invoked it, as cited in the body as 2 Phil. 26, for the view that a formal act may be written or verbal. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.
• Fabie vs. Lichauco, 11 Phil. 14 — Cited in the footnote together with Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo on the negative character of the easement.

• Article 538, Spanish Civil Code — Requires prescription of negative easements to be computed from the day the dominant owner, by a formal act, forbids the servient owner from performing an act lawful without the easement. Applied because the alleged prohibition occurred in 1913 or 1914, before the new Civil Code.
• Article 621, New Civil Code — Requires the prohibition to be in an instrument acknowledged before a notary public; the Court treated it as clarifying the "formal act" requirement of Article 538.
• Section 39, Land Registration Act — Provides that registration under the Torrens System cuts off or extinguishes easements not annotated on the certificate of title. Applied to the servient estate's Original Certificate of Title No. 7545.
• Section 11, Cadastral Law (Act No. 2259) — Cited in relation to Section 39 of the Land Registration Act in the context of the cadastral registration of the lots.
• Municipal Ordinance No. 3 (Laoag) — Required a distance of 2 meters measured from eaves to eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials; considered in the resolution denying reconsideration, where the Court found the violation attributable to both parties' construction.

• June 30, 1960 Decision: Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Gutierrez David, JJ.
• January 20, 1961 Resolution: Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.